Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010281362025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./4143/2025
ARMAN HOSSAIN AND ANR
S/O ABDAR HOSSAIN, R/O JARIDHARIA, P.O. GITALDAHA, P.S. DINHATA,
DIST. COOCH BEHAR, WEST BENGAL, PIN 736175
2: ARIF ALI
SON OF AZIM ALI
R/O RAGHUNANDAN
P.O. BALAKANDIP.S. DINHATA
DIST. COOCH BEHAR
WEST BENGAL
PIN-73617
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI
ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MS. K DEY,MR P K BASU
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 26.02.2026
Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by
Page No.# 2/7
Ms. K. Dey. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the NCB.
2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha
Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Arman Hossain and Arif Ali,
have prayed for bail in connection with NCB GZU Crime No. 08/2025 under
Section 8(c) of NDPS Act, r/w Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 12.07.2025. The gist of the allegation
is that, based on an information, search was conducted in one platforms of
Guwahati Railway Station and the present petitioners were allegedly found
involved in trafficking of Methamphetamine tablets, as a passenger in
Kanchanjunga Express.
4. This is a subsequent bail petition as an earlier bail petition was rejected
vide order dated 21.11.25 passed in Bail Appln. No. 2957/2025. The petitioner is
in judicial custody at present and he stated to have been arrested on
12.07.2025.
5. In the previous bail application, the contentions were made regarding the
issue of compliance with the mandatory notices under Section 47/48 of BNSS
and also the incriminating materials against the petitioner being only the
statement of co-accused. However, this Court in the previous bail order was
satisfied about the compliance with the notices and regarding materials other
than statement of co-accused, it was stated that the case was at the stage of
investigation. For ready reference, paragraph No.-11 of the said bail order is
reproduced here:-
“11. Considering the materials, I am reasonably satisfied that there is no
noncompliance of Section 47/48 of BNSS so as to constitute violation of constitutional
mandate under Section Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that
Page No.# 3/7in terms of Toofan Singh (supra) that a conviction cannot be based solely on the
statement of the co-accused. However, no any decision has been placed before this
Court that if the primary materials at the stage of bail adjudication is the statement of
the co-accused, then the accused is mandatorily required to be granted bail. Needless to
say that, the said aspect can always be taken into account at the stage of consideration
of bail.”
6. In this subsequent bail application, the primary contention of the petitioner
is that, he was detained in the late hours of night on 11.07.2025 but produced
before the Magistrate on 13.07.2025 beyond the period of 24 hours and
therefore, his arrest had stood vitiated, having been violative of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India.
7. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel relies on the decisions
of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Vihaan Kumar Vs State of
Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, D K Basu Vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
and Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2025) SCC OnLine
SC 2356.
8 The petitioner’s side has also filed an additional affidavit in support of the
main subsequent grounds adduced in this petition.
9. On the other hand, the prosecution represented by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury,
submits that there is no violation of the notices under Section 47/48 BNSS and
no violation either of the constitutional provisions, as much as, the
accused/petitioner for being arrested on 12.07.2025 was produced before the
Magistrate on 13.07.2025 within the stipulated period.
10. It is submitted that the process of identifying the potential accused, giving
him notices etc. would take its time and at that time he was not detained. He
was not arrested and only after finding prima facie materials, including the
statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, the petitioners were put under arrest on
Page No.# 4/7
12.07.2025. Detailed grounds of arrest have been narrated in the notices under
Sections 47/48 BNSS.
11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the decisions of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Vihaan
Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, D K Basu Vs State of West Bengal,
AIR 1997 SC 610 and Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356.
12. The scanned TCR has been received.
13. In the meantime, the case has been charge-sheeted and a certified copy
of the charge-sheet has also been submitted by the petitioner as part of his
additional affidavit.
14. In the scanned TCR received, I have perused the relevant materials and
also considered the rival submissions. In the charge- sheet, the materials found
by the investigation with regard to the different accused persons, including the
petitioners have been enumerated under separate individual headings.
15. The aspect of compliance with notices under Section 47 and 48 of BNSS
have already been gone into and accepted in the earlier bail order. Therefore, in
terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C (Section 403 BNSS), the same cannot be reviewed
and gone into again by this Court in the subsequent bail petition. Nevertheless,
upon perusing the arrest documents once again, I do not find any infirmity in
the notices under Section 47 and 48 BNSS.
16. With regard to the contention of the petitioner regarding production
beyond the period of 24 hours and consequent violation of the constitutional
mandate – I find that in the late hours of 11.07.2025, the search operation was
conducted and the present petitioners were given a notice to appear before the
Page No.# 5/7
Investigating Authority. Subsequently, upon collecting more materials, seizure of
the alleged contraband and recording of statements of the petitioners and other
co-accused under Section 67 NDPS Act, they were arrested on 12.07.2025. The
same is clearly reflected in the arrest documents.
17. I have perused the order of the learned JMFC dated 13.07.2025, upon
their first production. As mentioned in the order, the said day was a holiday and
the learned JMFC was discharging duties as a holiday Magistrate. Upon their
production before the learned JMFC on 13.07.2025, they were remanded.
18. On the basis of the available materials, I am unable to accept the
contention of the petitioner side that the arrest and subsequent production of
the petitioners was violative of the provisions of Section 36 BNSS either, which
could, in terms of the law laid down in D.K. Basu (supra), could have made
their arrest infirm and making them entitled to bail. Thus, I find that the same is
not the case and I have not found any fatal infirmity in the arrest procedure,
making the arrest completely vitiated.
19. With regard to the aspect of arrest solely on the basis of statement of co-
accused, I go back to the narration in the charge-sheet with regard to the
petitioners. With regard to petitioner Arman Hossain, it is stated in the charge-
sheet that his statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS, which was voluntary
in nature, implications have emerged about involvement in trafficking of the
seized contraband. It is stated that his mobile number has been located and
verified to be in his name and from the CDR analysis, he was found to be in
numerous contact with the co-accused Tahir Hussain Laskar, who was found
carrying the contraband. He was in touch with the said co-accused on two
mobile phones of his. The petitioner Arman Hossain was also stated to be in
telephonic contact with other co-accused of this case, including petitioner No. 2
Page No.# 6/7
Arif Ali. It is stated that financial transactions of significant amount were found
in the bank account of petitioner Arman Hossain and Arif Ali and also Arman
Hossain with another Raju Hussain. It is stated that after investigation, it has
been found that Petitioner Armaan Hossain acted as conduits for movement of
funds and logistics, receiving and utilizing the money for execution of the
trafficking, thereby attracting liability under Section 27A and 29 of the NDPS
Act.
20. With regard to petitioner Arif Ali, the narration in the charge-sheet is on
similar lines. Thus, it has been stated that in his voluntary statement under 67
NDPS Act, his involvement in trafficking of the contraband has emerged, his
mobile phone has been verified to be in his number and CDR analysis indicated
numerous contact with co-accused of the case, including Arman Hossain, Raju
Hussain. It is stated that he was found to be in contact with Arman Hossain
1078 times. Financial transactions of significant nature were also found between
him and Arman Hossain and also with Raju Hussain. A similar narration has also
been made with regard to petitioner Arif Ali about his being conduit for
execution of trafficking of illegal drugs.
21. Thus, upon perusing the aforesaid materials, it cannot be said that sole
materials against the petitioner upon completion of investigation are the
statements of co-accused. The investigation has found other incriminating
materials as well, with regard to the petitioners.
22. The contentions of the petitioner side regarding violation of arrest
procedure having been dispelled, as also the contention regarding the sole
incriminating material being the statement of co-accused – now, the applicability
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be seen. From the investigation materials
revealed and narrated in the charge-sheet, it is not possible to make a
Page No.# 7/7
determination for the purpose of bail adjudication that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the alleged offences.
Therefore, the test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be said to have passed
in their favour.
23. Consequently, the statutory bar on grant of bail to the petitioners prevails
at this stage, despite their length of detention since their arrest on 12.07.2025.
As the charge- sheet has just been filed and trial has not yet commenced,
therefore, it cannot also be said that, at this stage, the principles of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India would prevail over and defeat the statutory bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
24. Consequently, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of
the above discussion, I am unable to accept this subsequent bail petition also
and the same accordingly stands rejected at this stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant